Chasing Eris

[Placid Dingo]

Dingo's recent actions positively REEK of Captain Utopia. Especially the part where he thinks he's being reasonable in spite of it being totally obvious to everyone else how utterly fucked up his words and actions are.

Dingo, there's no reason for me to ban you from PD (personal feelings aside) but I will have to absolutely insist that the Chasing Eris project and any future projects you might look to publish are not in any way connected to PD.com. I don't even want this site, any of the content in this site, or any of the usernames on this site mentioned at all, not even in passing.

Post seen.

Also, bump.

Talk to ECH re: this. I have contacted him regarding concerns, and he has said he will get back to me.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Roger is welcome to participate as is anyone else, so I feel it's a bit disingenous to say I'm 'perfectly fine with leaving Roger out.' I spoke to Roger regarding Loveshade in late August, and it wasn't a dealbreaker at the time. I spoke again two months later in October when he told me he wouldn't be participating, and it was clear to me that this wasn't contingent on my changing my project, and that is wasn't related to LS.

Re; the group, as I said, I handelled it badly at the time, immediately pulling out the four people who announced they wouldn't intend to be participating any more in that LS thread. I had a little freakout, stressing about the group collapsing into drama, and made a poor snap judgment. There's two people in the group now that I'm aware of who have let me know they definately will not be taking part, but rather than making the same mistake repeatedly for the sake of consistency, it seems like less drama and upset to ask those individuals to take themselves out of the group when they're ready.

I do not suspect that any of the troubles I've had over the course of the project are the result of a conspiracy of any form, and haven't suggested as much to anyone.

I'll definitely be contacting Shii, thank you. [Edit: If possible]

Also, Nigel I know you're not telling me that your participation is contingent on my leaving Loveshade out. But others were, so the comments specific to that, were meant for the people to whom they applied, not as an insult to you personally.

Looks like it's not an apology for the shit you said (but don't remember) about other people controlling your work/sabotaging your project, just an apology for freaking out and kicking us out of your group.

Which I presume is where you also said those things, and which I don't have access to, so I can't prove it.

Nice.

There are people on this forum who have posting access. If you have a pressing need to find what it was you remember me saying I'm sure one of them will be happy to point it out for you.

I am quite sure that would be daunting to wade through a year's worth of Facebook postings, and unreasonable and rude to ask someone else to do it for me. If that was the group it was posted in, and not one of the other four or five active Discordian groups.

I don't have any doubts about my memory, but I thought it might help you with your disingenuity problem.

Speaking of which, I take it from this

Dingo's recent actions positively REEK of Captain Utopia. Especially the part where he thinks he's being reasonable in spite of it being totally obvious to everyone else how utterly fucked up his words and actions are.

Dingo, there's no reason for me to ban you from PD (personal feelings aside) but I will have to absolutely insist that the Chasing Eris project and any future projects you might look to publish are not in any way connected to PD.com. I don't even want this site, any of the content in this site, or any of the usernames on this site mentioned at all, not even in passing.

Post seen.

Also, bump.

Talk to ECH re: this. I have contacted him regarding concerns, and he has said he will get back to me.

...that you have no intention of respecting my request to be left unmentioned in your project. I would appreciate a straightforward reply, please: are you planning to respect my request, or not?

[Placid Dingo]

Roger is welcome to participate as is anyone else, so I feel it's a bit disingenous to say I'm 'perfectly fine with leaving Roger out.' I spoke to Roger regarding Loveshade in late August, and it wasn't a dealbreaker at the time. I spoke again two months later in October when he told me he wouldn't be participating, and it was clear to me that this wasn't contingent on my changing my project, and that is wasn't related to LS.

Re; the group, as I said, I handelled it badly at the time, immediately pulling out the four people who announced they wouldn't intend to be participating any more in that LS thread. I had a little freakout, stressing about the group collapsing into drama, and made a poor snap judgment. There's two people in the group now that I'm aware of who have let me know they definately will not be taking part, but rather than making the same mistake repeatedly for the sake of consistency, it seems like less drama and upset to ask those individuals to take themselves out of the group when they're ready.

I do not suspect that any of the troubles I've had over the course of the project are the result of a conspiracy of any form, and haven't suggested as much to anyone.

I'll definitely be contacting Shii, thank you. [Edit: If possible]

Also, Nigel I know you're not telling me that your participation is contingent on my leaving Loveshade out. But others were, so the comments specific to that, were meant for the people to whom they applied, not as an insult to you personally.

Looks like it's not an apology for the shit you said (but don't remember) about other people controlling your work/sabotaging your project, just an apology for freaking out and kicking us out of your group.

Which I presume is where you also said those things, and which I don't have access to, so I can't prove it.

Nice.

There are people on this forum who have posting access. If you have a pressing need to find what it was you remember me saying I'm sure one of them will be happy to point it out for you.

I am quite sure that would be daunting to wade through a year's worth of Facebook postings, and unreasonable and rude to ask someone else to do it for me. If that was the group it was posted in, and not one of the other four or five active Discordian groups.

I don't have any doubts about my memory, but I thought it might help you with your disingenuity problem.

Speaking of which, I take it from this

Dingo's recent actions positively REEK of Captain Utopia. Especially the part where he thinks he's being reasonable in spite of it being totally obvious to everyone else how utterly fucked up his words and actions are.

Dingo, there's no reason for me to ban you from PD (personal feelings aside) but I will have to absolutely insist that the Chasing Eris project and any future projects you might look to publish are not in any way connected to PD.com. I don't even want this site, any of the content in this site, or any of the usernames on this site mentioned at all, not even in passing.

Post seen.

Also, bump.

Talk to ECH re: this. I have contacted him regarding concerns, and he has said he will get back to me.

...that you have no intention of respecting my request to be left unmentioned in your project. I would appreciate a straightforward reply, please: are you planning to respect my request, or not?

I made an unambiguous statement less than an hour ago that I did not intend to mention people who do not wish to be mentioned. You have said that you do not wish to be mentioned. Therefore it is not my intention to mention you.

[Pζs]

Ugh, why did I just reread this thread?

Dingo, you should fall silent for a while and then burst back in again in a month or so, to get the full CAPTAIN UTOPIA CAN'T LET IT GO effect.

More importantly I would feel like a fraud if I were to decide Loveshade were 'too unpleasent' to discuss. I'd feel like I was calling in everyone to smile nicely and look normal. I'm interested in showing all sides of Discordia, not in being an Erisian PR manager. If there are unpleasant things in Discordia, I'm happy to show what they are.

Really? Do you think Loveshade's failure to understand the intersection between age and consent is "an unpleasant thing in Discordia" rather than a perversion of an individual, while the individual also happens to have latched on to the Discordian label? Why did your journalistic integrity get stuck on this one case but not force you to hunt down every freak who every hail'd Eris and associate the label with the skeletons in their closets?

Is it because the community responded with "ew no?" and tried to CENSOR you forcing you to overcompensate in your SERCH FOR TROOF?
If so, how does that community response work as support of your notion that Loveshade is relevant to Discordianism?

[Placid Dingo]

Q: Do you think Loveshade's failure to understand the intersection between age and consent is "an unpleasant thing in Discordia" rather than a perversion of an individual, while the individual also happens to have latched on to the Discordian label? 

A: The distinction seems meaningless. My measure for 'is someone a Discordian' is for this book simply that they self identify as Discordian. And some of my interviews haven't even gone that far!
I think that something being too unpleasant or taboo is a bad reason to avoid talking about it. I am aware of the specific things Loveshade has written in his book and website that you refer to, and I think that it would be wrong to ignore them because I was afraid it might be too unpleasant for people to hear about. Instead I think it's fair to have a honest discussion on how it's perceived and dealt with in the community. 

Q: Why did your journalistic integrity get stuck on this one case but not force you to hunt down every freak who every hail'd Eris and associate the label with the skeletons in their closets?

A: I'm not 'hunting down freaks.' I'm interviewing people who call themselves Discordians. I'm not associating Discordia with anything. I'm letting people tell me how they regard Discordia.  The answers are very broad.

Q: Is it because the community responded with "ew no?" and tried to CENSOR you forcing you to overcompensate in your SERCH FOR TROOF? 

A: No. I have not chosen to do anything in this project just because people told me not to. 

Q: If so, how does that community response work as support of your notion that Loveshade is relevant to Discordianism?

A: Well, not so, but all I mean by relevant, if that was my term, is that Loveshade is well known within Discordia online, through his websites mostly and his book, and his various conflicts with other members of the community. 

Can I also say: it's not even written yet. It's in progress. It's not even editing stage. So there are no choices being made right now about what WILL be and what WILL NOT. What I do insist on is that when it is time to make those choices, I will make them, with input from my publisher. So I can't tell you too much about what I say about any one person just yet because I may prove a liar.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I made an unambiguous statement less than an hour ago that I did not intend to mention people who do not wish to be mentioned. You have said that you do not wish to be mentioned. Therefore it is not my intention to mention you.

Settle down, I hadn't gotten there yet. I can only read one thread at a time.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I still think it's hilarious that according to Dingo Loveshade is a really important part of Discordia who simply could not be left out while still maintaining journalistic integrity, yet AKK, probably the most flamboyantly self-promoting Discordian of all time (and by FAR the easiest to track down; all you have to do is follow his chaos-star beacons which are broadcast ON EVERY POSSIBLE SOCIAL MEDIA SITE) is apparently not worth the slightest effort to "track down".
 

AKK is also a wannabe guru, but he's a bigger character in pretty much every possible way. The main difference is that nobody's automatic response to him is "ew I don't want anyone to associate me with anything he's involved in". He'll annoy you to death, it's true, but he's neither a kiddie-sex promoter nor a plagiarist.

I'm seriously missing something here, re: why Loveshade was so important to get an interview with that he was worth losing the trust and respect of a substantial segment of the Discordian community, but AKK wasn't even worth trying to get, and yet somehow in this dissonance there's something about "journalistic integrity"?

Sorry man, but I don't think so.

[Placid Dingo]

Nobody was ever or is now too important to be left out. All I insist on is that the choice is mine. I've said that a few times now.

If I get to it I may get onto AKK, but that's not really relevant or something I'm going to address again.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Been at work but this is the main of what I'd like to say.

I thought about some of these issues a lot when Roger first raised concerns regarding Loveshade. The conclusion I came to then is the conclusion I'm at now; I don't have a real problem losing Loveshade; after all, all I have is one Internet  interview which may not even make the final cut, and I have no plans to meet him. However I do have a problem loosing editorial control, and being told who I may and any may not discuss as a Discordian public figure.

More importantly I would feel like a fraud if I were to decide Loveshade were 'too unpleasent' to discuss. I'd feel like I was calling in everyone to smile nicely and look normal. I'm interested in showing all sides of Discordia, not in being an Erisian PR manager. If there are unpleasant things in Discordia, I'm happy to show what they are.

In regards to the FB group I'll admit to a handful of poor choices this morning. It felt to me to be passive aggressive to pull people out without making contact, hence the pms. Possibly this was the wrong call to make, and if so, I apologise.  The facebook group has always been locked and private, and exists for my convenience in organising trip matters. I don't want drama in there, and I don't want people connected who aren't interested in being involved. When I pulled people out today I should have given everyone a bit of notice and a chance to clean up conversations first, and I didn't, which I apologise for.

Regarding the tone around here I seem to be persona non grata so if there's any questions, PM me and I'll post up an answer here.

Oh hey.

If I keep on reading this thread, I wonder if I'll find the part where you accuse Roger and I of attempting to sabotage your project, as well?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nobody was ever or is now too important to be left out. All I insist on is that the choice is mine. I've said that a few times now.

If I get to it I may get onto AKK, but that's not really relevant or something I'm going to address again.

Have I mentioned that you're a slimy shitweasel yet?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think I would have had more respect for the way you handled it if you hadn't tried to scuff the Loveshade interview under the carpet; if you'd recognized that it was a potential issue in the beginning and said "Hey guys, there's this. It may affect how you feel about how you are represented and whether you want to participate. Any input on how I should handle it?". But instead, you chose to quietly disregard Roger's concerns when he brought it up, to the extent that other concerned parties missed it. As I believe you intended. Until it came up again and I brought it up as a point that couldn't so easily be blithely disregarded and hushed, although that is, to my eye, exactly what you tried to do when you moved to silence me and shut me down in your group.

As it stands, no, after the way you skimmed over that, banned me from your group mid-argument, and unfriended me because I don't want to participate in your little project, I don't trust you to represent the community, I don't trust your judgement, and I also don't think that a book about current-day Discordians that doesn't include Roger and LMNO is worth my time. You keep insisting that this is about people trying to dictate who you will interview, but it's the exact opposite; it's people removing themselves from your purview. Stop trying to make it into something else.

You yourself asked that we not use your real name on the board because you don't want it associated with Discordianism until you're done teaching... how is it that you cannot understand that some people here, especially those of us whose real identities are closely linked to our Discordian identities, simply don't want to be associated with someone who is a hanger-on with socially repugnant ideas about adults having sex with minors? Congratulations on giving a truly repugnant person what he's always wanted and been laughed off at every previous turn; legitimacy as a truly Important Discordian Person. If, for some unfathomable reason, your painfully incomplete glimpse into the Discordian community ends up legitimizing Loveshade as a serious contributor to Discordia, I will disavow any and all connection to Discordianism.

Bump for posterity.

It's interesting re-reading this thread, and seeing where it all took a turn. I've always tried to be reasonably charitable toward Dingo, but after re-reading this I feel much, much less charitable. He's a douchecanoe.

[Placid Dingo]

Been at work but this is the main of what I'd like to say.

I thought about some of these issues a lot when Roger first raised concerns regarding Loveshade. The conclusion I came to then is the conclusion I'm at now; I don't have a real problem losing Loveshade; after all, all I have is one Internet  interview which may not even make the final cut, and I have no plans to meet him. However I do have a problem loosing editorial control, and being told who I may and any may not discuss as a Discordian public figure.

More importantly I would feel like a fraud if I were to decide Loveshade were 'too unpleasent' to discuss. I'd feel like I was calling in everyone to smile nicely and look normal. I'm interested in showing all sides of Discordia, not in being an Erisian PR manager. If there are unpleasant things in Discordia, I'm happy to show what they are.

In regards to the FB group I'll admit to a handful of poor choices this morning. It felt to me to be passive aggressive to pull people out without making contact, hence the pms. Possibly this was the wrong call to make, and if so, I apologise.  The facebook group has always been locked and private, and exists for my convenience in organising trip matters. I don't want drama in there, and I don't want people connected who aren't interested in being involved. When I pulled people out today I should have given everyone a bit of notice and a chance to clean up conversations first, and I didn't, which I apologise for.

Regarding the tone around here I seem to be persona non grata so if there's any questions, PM me and I'll post up an answer here.

Oh hey.

If I keep on reading this thread, I wonder if I'll find the part where you accuse Roger and I of attempting to sabotage your project, as well?

Thank you. This is why I was asking for the direct quote, so I could see what was being talked about. I never meant by that comment that other people were trying to take over my project. I meant that if I can't make decisions about what I include I don't feel like I have full editorial control. So if anyone's involvement was contingent on having a say on what made a final draft I would sooner avoid the issue and decline the interview. When people began to tell me that I had accused others of trying to control my work, denied it, because that is not what I tried to say in this comment. I am sorry if I wrote it ambiguously but hopefully it is now very clear what I wished to say.

You won't find anything about sabotage because that was never something I said, but I would appreciate seeing the quote that you remember, if only to understand for myself where this impression came from.

[Placid Dingo]

I actually didn't come back to reply but felt there was one more thing I wished to mention.

Paes talked about 'journalistic integrity.' Not sure if his word or mine but I guess where he's used that I just say honesty.

This was where my reasons for involving Loveshade were challenged and among other points, the point was made that it would be bad to associate Discordia with his ideas. My feeling here is that I disagree. Loveshade, who calls himself a Discordian has upset other Discordians by sharing ideas that have upset people for extremely valid reasons, and to be honest about that is to promote a culture of honesty and avoid embracing a culture of secrecy. This isn't me saying why I will discuss Loveshade becaue as I've mentioned those are choices that will come out of the editing process; but it is a reason why I do not accept the idea that his views are too terrible to be aknowledged honestly and critically.

It is 3-am. I sleep now. Please give me a little more leeway on this particular post, because my brain is slowing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Pretty sure the "sabotage" post was on Facebook. I have no idea which group.

It's not a big deal, though, because the bottom line is that neither you nor your project matter much, other than that I think your mishandling of it opened a nice opportunity for a distinct schism.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I like how you're all "Well you found THAT thing I claimed I didn't say, but it's not what I meant, and you won't find the other thing I claimed I didn't say".

  Delusional much?